Skip to main content

Full text of "Manifesto of the Communist party"

See other formats







•Id B. Lee Library 

Customer name: Wyllie, Meagan V 

Title: Manifesto of the Communist party 
ID: 31 197003870554 



Workingmen of all countries, unite! 
You have nothing to lose but your chains. 
You have a world to win. 



341-349 E. Ohio St. Chicago, III 

» • • • « • • 
• » • « • • 

• • # t • * # « »- # » • • 

• • , • •• •*■'• ** 

■ • « • « * • • • B* • • 

• • • • ♦ «. • • • •• 

• 4 • »••*•••• 










The "Manifesto" was published as the plat* 
form of the "Communist League/' a working' 
men's association, first exclusively German, later 
an international, and under the political condi- 
tions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably 
a secret society. At a Congress of the League, 
held in London in November, 1847, Marx and 
Engels were commissioned to prepare for pub- 
lication a complete theoretical and practical 
party-program. Drawn up in German, in Janu- 
ary, 1848,\the manuscript was sent to the printer 
in London a few weeks before the French revo- 
lution of February 24th. A French translation 
was brought out in Paris, shortly before the 
insurrection of June, 1848. The first English 
translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared 
in George Julian Harney's " Red Reogfrlican. " 
London, 185(X A Danish and a Polish edition 
Had also beeif published. 

The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June, 
1848 — the first great battle between Proletariat 
and Bourgeoisie— drove again into the back- 
ground, for a time, the social and political aspira- 
tions of the European working class. Thence- 
forth, the struggle for supremacy was again, as it 
had been before the revolution of February, solely 
between different sections of the propertied class ; 


the working class was ^^^H— 
wing of the M>fdle-class Ratals ™ ^ 

dependent P^/^^^hlessly hunted 
show "g^fi.Srpolice hunted out the 
/Mown. Inus tnenua ° r *L ist League, then 
( Central Board of tte togj ^arrested, 
located in Cologne^ The n«J« isonment , they 
and, after eighteen ™° r nth | 52 imp This celebrated 

W ere tried in ^^.12^1 f ro m October 
-Cologne Communist tral lasted, i honQrs 

4th till November ^ 8 ^JJ iaolin £nt in a 
were sentenced to term 01 imp Iffl _ 

fortress, varying *^ **«£ League was for- 
mediately after the ^"^fng m lmbers. As 

? 1h y e d <^^^ t0 ^ 

^^ b 2ss& r ki ^ a ?ttack ss 

ered sufficient streng ;th ^j^SK'Serf. 
ruling classes, the JtiternatKmai vv ^^ 
Association sprang up. &* weld ing into one 
formed with the expr ess »» J»J e £ in f urope an d 
body the who e miht ant P^£*& the P princi- 

Amenca, «» lQ .^ ^Jr ~if5sto. M The Interna- 
ls laid down in the Manifesto • broa(i 
tional was bound to have a PS , 
enough to be acceptable to the Entfis p 
Unions, to the followers ot rrou Ueans * 

»^ ^^ " «* ^ m 


to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted 
to the intellectual development of the working- 
class, which was sure to result from combined ac- 
tion and mutual discussion. The very events and 
vicissitudes of the struggle against Capital, the 
defeats even more than the victories, could not 
help bringing home to men's minds the insuffi- 
ciency of their various favorite nostrums, and pre- 
paring the way for a more complete insight into 
the true conditions of working-class emancipa- 
tion. And Marx was right. The International, 
on its breaking up in 1874, left the workers quite 
different men from what it had found them in 
1864. Proudhonism in France, Lasalleanism in 
Germany were dying out, and even the Conserva- 
tive English Trades' Unions, though most of 
them had long since severed their connection with 
the International, were gradually advancing to- 
wards that point at which, last year at Swansea, 
their president could say in their name, "Conti- 
nental Socialism has lost its terrors for us." In 
fact, the principles of the "Manifesto" had made 
considerable headway among the working men of 
all countries. 

The Manifesto itself thus came to the front 
again. The German text had been, since 1850, re- 
printed several times in Switzerland, England and 
America. In 1872, it was translated into English 
in New York, where the translation was pub- 
lished in "Woodhull and Clafiin's Weekly." From 
this English version, a French one was made in 
"Le Socialiste" of New York. Since then at 
least two more English translations, more or less 
mutilated, have been brought out in America, and 


one of them has been reprinted in England. The 
first Russian translation, made by Bakounine, was 
published at Herzen's "Kolokol" office in Geneva, 
about 1863; a second one, by the heroic Vera 
Zasulitch, also in Geneva, 1882. A new Danish 
edition is to be found in "Socialdemokratisk Bib- 
liothek," Copenhagen, 1885 ; a fresh French trans- 
lation in "Le Socialiste," Paris, 1886. From this 
latter a Spanish version was prepared and pub- 
lished in Madrid, 1886. The German reprints arc 
not to be counted, there have been twelve alto- 
gether at the least. An Armenian translation, 
which was to be published in Constantinople some 
months ago, did not see the light, I am told, be- 
cause the publisher was afraid of bringing out a 
book with the name of Marx on it, while the 
translator declined to call it his own production. 
Of further translations into other languages I 
have heard, but have not seen them. Thus the 
history of the Manifesto reflects, to a great ex- 
tent, the history of the modern working-class 
movement ; at present it is undoubtedly the most 
widespread, the most international production of 
all Socialist literature, the common platform 
acknowledged by millions of working men from 
Siberia to California. 

Yet, when it was written, we could not have 
called it a Socialist Manifesto. By Socialists, in 
1847, were understood, on the one hand, the ad- 
herents of the various Utopian systems : Owen- 
ites in England, Fourierists in France, both of 
them already reduced to the position of mere 
sects, and gradually dying out ; on the other hand, 
the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all 


manners of tinkering, professed to redress, with- 
out any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of 
social grievances, in both cases men outside the 
working class movement, and looking rather to 
the "educated" classes for support. Whatever 
portion of the working class had become con- 
vinced of the insufficiency of mere political revo- 
lutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of a 
total social change, that portion, then, called 
itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, 
purely instinctive sort of Communism; still, it 
touched the cardinal point and was powerful 
enough amongst the working class to produce the 
Utopian Communism, in France, of Cabet, and 
in Germany, of Weitling. Thus, Socialism was, 
in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a 
working class movement. Socialism was, on the 
Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism 
was the very opposite. And as our notion, from 
the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of 
the working class must be the act of the working 
class itself," there could be no doubt as to which 
of the two names we must take. Moreover, we 
have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. 

The "Manifesto" being our joint production, I 
consider myself bound to state that the funda- 
mental proposition which forms its nucleus, be- 
longs to Marx. That proposition is : that in every 
historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic 
production and exchange, and the social organi- 
zation necessarily following from it, form the 
basis upon which is built up, and from which 
alone can be explained, the political and intellec- 
tual history of that epoch ; that consequently the 


whole history of mankind (since the dissolution 
of primitive tribal society, holding land in com- 
mon ownership) has been a history of class 
struggles, contests between exploiting and ex- 
ploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the 
history of these class struggles forms a series of 
evolution in which, now-a-days, a stage has been 
reached where the exploited and oppressed class 
— the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation 
from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class 
« — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and 
once and for all, emancipating society at large 
from all exploitation, oppression, class-distinc- 
tions and class struggles. 

This proposition which, in my opinion, is des- 
tined to do for history what Darwin's theory has 
done for biology, we, both of us, had been gradu- 
ally approaching for some years before 1845. 
How far I had independently progressed towards 
it, is best shown by my "Condition of the Work- 
ing Class in England."* But when I again met 
Marx at Brussels, in spring, 1845, he had it ready 
worked out, and put it before me, in terms almost 
as clear as those in which I have stated it here. 

From our joint preface to the German edition 
of 1872, 1 quote the following : 

"However much the state of things may have 
altered during the last 25 years, the general prin- 
ciples laid down in this Manifesto, are, on the 
whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there 
some detail might be improved. The practical ap- 
plication of the principles will depend, as the 

♦The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. Bjr 
Frederick Engels. Translated by Florence K. Wischnewetzky— * 
London, Swan, Sonnenschein & Co. 


manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all 
times, on the historical conditions for the time 
being existing, and, for that reason, no special 
stress is laid on the revolutionary measures pro- 
posed at the end of Section II. That passage 
would, in many respects, be very differently 
worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of 
Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accom- 
panying improved and extended organization of 
the working-class, in view of the practical experi- 
ence gained, first in the February revolution, and 
then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the 
proletariat for the first time held political power 
for two whole months, this program has in some 
details become antiquated. One thing especially 
was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the work- 
ing-class cannot simply lay hold of the ready- 
made State machinery, and wield it for its own 
purposes." (See "The Civil War in France; Ad- 
dress of the General Council of the International 
Working-men's Association/' Chicago, Charles H. 
Kerr & Co., where this point is further developed). 
Further, it is self-evident, that the criticism of 
socialist literature is deficient in relation to the 
present time, because it comes down only to 
1847; also, that the remarks on the relation of 
the Communists to the various opposition-parties 
(Section IV.), although in principle still correct, 
yet in practice are antiquated, because the poli- 
tical situation has been entirely changed, and the 
progress of history has swept from off the earth 
the greater portion of the political parties there 
"But then, the Manifesto has become a historical 


document which we have no longer any right to 

The present translation is by Mr. Samuel 
Moore, the translator of the greater portion of 
Marx's "Capital." We have revised it in common, 
and I have added a few notes explanatory of his- 
torical allusions. 

Frederick Engete. 

London, 30th January, 1888. 






A SPECTRE is haunting Europe— the spectre 
of Communism. All the powers of old Europe 
have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this 
spectre; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, 
French Radicals and German police-spies. 

Where is the party in opposition that has not 
been decried as communistic by its opponents in 
power? Where the Opposition that has not 
hurled back the branding reproach of Commun- 
ism, against the more advanced opposition par- 
ties, as well as against its reactionary adver- 
saries ? 

Two things result from this fact. 

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all 
European Powers to be itself a Power, 

II. It is high time that Communists should 
openly, in the face of the whole world, publish 
their views, their aims, their tendencies, and 
meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Commun- 
ism with a Manifesto of the party itself. 

To this end, Communists of various nationali- 
ties have assembled in London, and sketched the 
following manifesto, to be published in the Eng- 
lish, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Dan- 
ish languages. 



The history of all hitherto existing societyf is 
the history of class struggles. 

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord 
and serf, guild-master^ and journeyman, in a 
word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant 
opposition to one another, carried on an uninter- 
rupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that 
each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-ccn- 
stitution of society at large, or in the common 
ruin of the contending classes. 

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost 
everywhere a complicated arrangement of so- 
ciety into various orders, a manifold graduation 
of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patri- 
cians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the middle 

*By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners 
of the means of social production and employers of wage-labor. By 
proletariat, the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means 
of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power 
in order to live. 

tThat is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, 
the social organization existing previous to recorded history, was all 
but unknown. Since then, Haxthausen discovered common owner- 
ship of land in Russia, Maurer proved it to be the social foundation 
from which all Teutonic races started in history, and by 
and by village communities were found to be, or to have 
been, the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ire- 
land. The inner organization of this primitive Communistic society 
was laid bare, in its typical form, by Morgan's crowning discovery 
of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With 
the dissolution of these primeval communities society begins to be 
differentiated into separate and finally antagonistic classes. I have 
attempted to retrace this process of dissolution in "The Origin of 
the Family, Private Property and the State." (Chicago, Oiarles 
H. Kerr & Co.) 

t Guild-master, that is a full member of a guild, a master within, 
not a head of, a guild. 


ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journey- 
men, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these 
classes, again, subordinate gradations. 
/The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted 
from the ruins of feudal society, has not done 
away with class antagonisms. It has but estab- 
lished new classes, new conditions of oppression, 
new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. 

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, pos- 
sesses, however, this distinctive feature; it has 
simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a 
whole is more and more splitting up into two 
great hostile camps, into two great classes directly 
facing each other : Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. 

From the serfs of the middle ages sprang the 
chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From 
these burgesses the first elements of the bour- 
geoisie were developed. 

The discovery of America, the rounding of the 
Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bour- 
geoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, 
the colonization of America, trade with the col- 
onies, the increase in the means of exchange and 
in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to 
navigation, to industry, an impulse never before 
known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element 
in the tottering feudal society, a rapid develop- 

The feudal system of industry, under which in- 
dustrial production was monopolized by close 
guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing 
wants of the new markets. The manufacturing 
system took its place. The guild-masters were 
pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle- 
class ; division of labor between the different cor- 


porate guilds vanished in the face of division of 
labor in each single workshop. 

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the 
demand, ever rising. Even manufacture no 
longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery 
revolutionized industrial production. The place 
of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern 
Industry, the place of the industrial middle-class, 
by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole 
industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. 

Modern industry has established the world- 
market, for which the discovery of America paved 
the way. This market has given an immense de- 
velopment to commerce, to navigation, to com- 
munication by land. This development has, in its 
turn, reacted on the extension of industry ; and in 
proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, 
railways extended, in the same proportion the 
bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and 
pushed into the background every class handed 
down from the Middle Ages. 

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie 
is itself the product of a long course of develop- 
ment, of a series of revolutions in the modes of 
production and of exchange. 

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie 
was accompanied by a corresponding political 
advance of that class. An oppressed class under 
the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self- 
governing association in the mediaeval commune,* 

""Commune" waa the bum taken, in France, by the nascent town* 
•ren before they had conquered from their feudal lerdt and masters. 
local self-government and political right* ai "the Third Eaiafte.** 
Generally speaking, for the economical development of the bour- 
geoisie, England it here taken aa the typical country, for itt political 
development, France. 


here independent urban republic (as in Italy and 
Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the 
monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the pe- 
riod of manufacture proper, serving either the 
semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a coun- 
terpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner 
stone of the great monarchies in general, the bour- 
geoisie has at last, since the establishment of 
Modern Industry and of the world-market, con- 
quered for itself, in the modern representative 
State, exclusive political sway. The executive of 
the modern State is but a committee for manag- 
ing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. 

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most 
revolutionary part. 

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper 
/hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, 
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder 
the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 
"natural superiors," and has left remaining no 
other nexus between man and man than naked 
self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It 
has drowned the most heavenly ecstacies of re- 
ligious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of phili- 
stine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotis- 
tical calculation. It has resolved personal worth 
into exchange value, and in place of the number- 
less indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up 
that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. 
In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious 
and political illusions, it has substituted naked, 
shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. 

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every 
occupation hitherto honored and looked up to 
with reverent awe. It has converted the physi- 


cian, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of 
science, into its paid wage-laborers. 

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family 
its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family 
relation to a mere money relation. 

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to 
pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle 
Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found 
its fitting complement in the most slothful in- 
dolence. It has been the first to show what man's 
activity can bring about. It has accomplished 
wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Ro- 
man aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals ; it has con- 
ducted expeditions that put in the shade all for- 
mer Exoduses of nations and crusades. 

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without con- 
stantly revolutionizing the instruments of produc- 
tion, and thereby the relations of production, 
land with them the whole relations of society. 
Conservation of the old modes of production in 
unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first 
condition of existence for all earlier industrial 
classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, 
uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, 
everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish 
the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All 
fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of 
ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are 
swept away, all new-formed ones become anti- 
quated before they can ossify. All that is solid 
melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and 
man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, 
his real conditions of life, and his relations with 
his kind. 


The need of a constantly expanding market for 
its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole 
surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, 
settle everywhere, establish connections every- 

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of 
the world-market given a cosmopolitan character 
to production and consumption in every country. 
To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has 
drawn from under the feet of industry the na- 
tional ground on which it stood. All old-estab- 
lished national industries have been destroyed or 
are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by 
new industries, whose introduction becomes a 
life and death question for all civilized nations, 
by industries that no longer work up indigenous 
raw material, but raw material drawn from the re- 
motest zones ; industries whose products are con- 
sumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of 
the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by 
the productions of the country, we find new 
wants, requiring for their satisfaction the prod- 
ucts of distant lands and climes. In place of the 
old local and national seclusion and self-suffi- 
ciency, we have intercourse in every direction, 
universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in 
material, so also in intellectual production. The 
intellectual creations of individual nations become 
common property. National one-sidedness and 
narrow-mindedness become more and more im- 
possible, and from the numerous national and 
local literatures there arises a world-literature. 

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of 
all instruments of production, by the immensely 
facilitated means of communication, draws all, 



even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. 
The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy 
artillery with which it batters down all Chinese 
walls, with which it forces the barbarians' in- 
tensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitu- 
late. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, 
to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it 
compels them to introduce what it calls civiliza- 
tion into their midst, i. e., to become bourgeois 
themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its 
own image. 

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to 
the rule of the towns. It has created enormous 
cities, has greatly increased the urban popula- 
tion as compared with the rural, and has thus 
rescued a considerable part of the population from 
the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the 
country dependent on the towns, so it has made 
barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent 
on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on na- 
tions of bourgeois, the East on the West. 

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing 
#way with the scattered state of the population, 
of the means of production, and of property. It 
has agglomerated population, centralized means 
of production, and has concentrated property in a 
few hands. The necessary consequence of this 
was political centralization. Independent, or but 
loosely connected provinces, with separate inter- 
ests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, 
became lumped together in one nation, with one 
government, one code of laws, one national class- 
interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. 

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one 
hundred years, has created more massive and 


more colossal productive forces than have all pre- 
ceding generations together. Subjection of 
Nature's forces to man, machinery, application 
of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam- 
navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing 
of whole continents for cultivation, canalization 
of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the 
ground — what earlier century had even a presenti- 
ment that such productive forces slumbered in the 
lap of social labor? 

i ** We see then : the means of production and of 
exchange on whose foundation the bourgeoisie 

J)uilt itself up, were generated in feudal society. 

"At a certain stage in the development of these 
means of production and of exchange, the con- 
ditions under which feudal society produced and 
exchanged, the feudal organization of agricuk 
ture and manufacturing industry, in one word, 
the feudal relations of property became no longe*- 
compatible with the already developed produc- 
tive forces; they became so many fetters. They 
had to burst asunder; they were burst asunder. 
Into their places stepped free competition, ac- 
companied by a social and political constitution 
adapted to it, and by the economical and political 
sway of the bourgeois class. 

A similar movement is going on before our own 
eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations 
of production, of exchange and of property, a so^ 
ciety that has conjured up such gigantic means 
of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, 
who is no longer able to control the powers of 
the nether world whom he has called up by his 
spells. For many a decade past the history of 
industry and commerce is but the history of the 


revolt of modern productive forces against mod- 
ern conditions of production, against the property 
relations that are the conditions for the existence 
of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to 
mention the commercial crises that by their pe- 
riodical return put on its trial, each time more 
threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois 
society. In these crises a great part not only of 
the existing products, but also of the previously 
created productive forces, are periodically de- 
stroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epi- 
demic that, in all earlier epochs, would have 
seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-pro- 
duction. Society suddenly finds itself put back 
into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears 
as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had 
cut off the supply of every means of subsistence ; 
industry and commerce seem to be destroyed ; and 
why? Because there is too much civilization, too 
much means of subsistence, too much industry, 
too much commerce. The productive forces at 
the disposal of society no longer tend to further 
the development of the conditions of bourgeois 
property ; on the contrary, they have become too 
powerful for these conditions, by which they are 
fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fet- 
ters, they bring disorder into the whole of bour- 
geois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois 
property. The conditions of bourgeois society are 
too narrow to comprise the wealth created by 
them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over 
these crises? On the one hand by enforced de- 
struction of a mass of productive forces; on the 
other, by the conquest of new markets, and bythe 
fnore thorough exploitation of the old ones. That 


is to say, by paving the way for more extensive 
and more destructive crises, and by diminishing 
the means whereby crises are prevented. 

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled 
feudalism to the ground are now turned against 
the bourgeoisie itself. 

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the 
weapons that bring death to itself; it has also 
called into existence the men who are to wield 
those weapons — the modern working-class — the 

P^In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i. e., capital, 
/ is developed, in the same proportion is the prole- 
tariat, the modern working-class, developed, a 
class of laborers, who live only so long as they 
find work, and vho find work only so long as 
their labor increases capital. These laborers, 
who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a com- 
modity, like every other article of commerce, and 
are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes 
\ of competition, to all the fluctuations of the 

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and 
to division of labor, the work of the proletarians 
>has lost all individual character, and, conse- 
. quently, all charm for the workman. He becomes 
an appendage of the machine, and it is only the 
most simple, most monotonous, and most easily 
acquired knack that is required of him. Hence, 
the cost of production of a workman is restricted, 
almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that 
he requires for his maintenance, and for the prop* 
agation of his race. But the price of a com- 
modity, and also of labor, is equal to its cost of 
production. In proportion, therefore, as the re- 


pulsiveness of the work increases, the wage de- 
creases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of 
machinery and division of labor increases, in the 
same proportion the burden of toil also increases, 
whether by prolongation of the working hours, 
by increase of the work enacted in a given time, 
or by increased speed of the machinery, etc. 

Modern industry has converted the little work- 
shop of the patriarchal master into the great fac- 
tory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labor- 
ers, crowded into the factory, are organized like 
soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they 
are placed under the command of a perfect hier- 
archy of officers and sergeants. Not only are 
they the slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the 
bourgeois State, they are daily and hourly en- 
slaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, 
above all, by the individual bourgeois manufac- 
turer himself. The more openly this despotism 
proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more 
petty, the more hateful and the more embittering 
it is. 

The less the skill and exertion or strength im- 
plied in manual labor, in other words, the more 
modern industry becomes developed, the more is 
the labor of men superseded by that of women. 
Differences of age and sex have no longer any dis- 
tinctive social validity for the working class. All 
are instruments of labor, more or less expensive 
to use, according to their age and sex. 

No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by 
the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he re- 
ceives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by 
the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, 
the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc. 


The lower strata of the Middle class — the small 
tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen 
generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all 
these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly 
because their diminutive capital does not suffice 
for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried 
on, and is swamped in the competition with the 
large capitalists, partly because their specialized 
skill is rendered worthless by new methods of 
production. Thus the proletariat is recruited 
from all classes of the population. 

The proletariat goes through various stages of 
development. With its birth begins its struggle 
with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried 
on by individual laborers, then by the workpeople 
of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, 
in one locality, against the individual bourgeois 
who directly exploits them. They direct their 
attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of 
production, but against the instruments of produc- 
tion themselves; they destroy imported wares 
that compete with their labor, they smash to 
pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they 
seek to restore by force the vanished status of the 
workman of the Middle Ages. 

At this stage the laborers still form an inco- 
herent mass scattered over the whole country, and 
broken up by their mutual competition. If any- 
where they unite to form more compact bodies, 
this is not yet the consequence of their own active 
union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which 
class, in order to attain its own political ends, is 
compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, 
and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. 
At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not 


fight their enemies, but the enemies of their ene- 
mies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the 
landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the 
petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical 
movement is concentrated in the hands of the 
bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a vic- 
tory for the bourgeoisie. 

But with the development of industry the prol- 
etariat not only increases in number, it becomes 
concentrated in greater masses, its strength 
grows, and it feels that strength more. The vari- 
ous interests and conditions of life within the 
ranks of the proletariat are more and more equal- 
ized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all 
distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere re- 
duces wages to the same low level. The grow- 
ing competition among the bourgeois, and the 
resulting commercial crises, make the wages of 
the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceas- 
ing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly 
developing, makes their livelihood more and more 
precarious; the collisions between individual 
workmen and individu:- A bourgeois take more and 
more the character cf collisions between two 
classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form 
combinations (Traces' Unions) against the bour- 
geois; they club together in order to keep up 
the rate of wages; they found permanent asso- 
ciations in order to make provision beforehand 
for these occasional revolts. Here and there the 
contest breaks out into riots. 

Now and then the workers are victorious, but 
only for a time. The real fruit of their battles 
lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever 



expanding union of the workers. This union is 
helped on by the improved means of communica- 
tion that are created by modern industry, and 
that place the workers of different localities in 
contact with one another. It was just this con- 
tact that was needed to centralize the numerous 
local struggles, all of the same character, into 
one national struggle between classes. But every 
class struggle is a political struggle. And that 
union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle 
Ages, with their miserable highways, required 
centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to rail- 
ways, achieve in a few years. 

This organization of the proletarians into a 
class, and consequently into a political party, is 
continually being upset again by the competition 
between the workers themselves. But it ever 
rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It com- 
pels legislative recognition of particular interests 
of the workers, by taking advantage of the di- 
visions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the 
ten-hour bill in England was carried. 

Altogether collisions between the classes of the 
old society further, in many ways, the course of 
development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie 
finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first 
with the aristocracy ; later on, with those portions 
of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have be- 
come antagonistic to the progress of industry ; at 
all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign coun- 
tries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled 
to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, 
and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The 
bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the prole- 


tariat with its own elements of political and gen- 
eral education, in other words, it furnishes the 
proletariat with weapons for fighting the bour- 

Further, as we have already seen, entire sec- 
tions of the ruling classes are, by the advance of 
industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are 
at least threatened in their conditions of existence. 
These also supply the proletariat with fresh ele- 
ments of enlightenment and progress. 

Finally, in times when the class-struggle nears 
the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going 
on within the ruling class, in fact, within the 
whole range of old society, assumes such a vio- 
lent, glaring character, that a small section of the 
ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolu- 
tionary class, the class that holds the future in 
its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, 
a section of the nobility went over to the bour- 
geoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes 
over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion 
of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised 
themselves to the level of comprehending theo- 
retically the historical movements as a whole. 

Of all the classes that stand face to face with 
the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a 
really revolutionary class. The other classes 
decay and finally disappear in the face of modern 
industry; the proletariat is its special and essen- 
tial product. 

The lower middle-class, the small manufacturer, 
the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these 
fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinc- 
tion their existence as fractions of the middle 


tlass. They are, therefore, not revolutionary, but 
(conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for 
they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by 
chance they are revolutionary, they are so, only 
in view of their impending transfer into the pro- 
letariat, they thus defend not their present, but 
their future interests, they desert their own stand- 
point to place themselves at that of the prole- 

The "dangerous class," the social scum, that 
passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest 
layers of old society, may, here and there, be 
swept into the movement by a proletarian revolu- 
tion ; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far 
more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary 

In the conditions of the proletariat, those of 
old society at large are already virtually swamped. 
The proletarian is without property; his relation 
to his wife and children has no longer anything 
in common with the bourgeois family-relations; 
modern industrial labor, modern subjection to 
capital, the same in England as in France, in 
America as in Germany, has stripped him of every 
trace of national character. Law, morality, re- 
ligion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, 
behind which lurk in ambush just as many bour^ 
geois interests. 

All the preceding classes that got the uppei 
hand, sought to fortify their already acquired 
status by subjecting society at large to their con- 
ditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot 
become masters of the productive forces of so^ 
ciety, except by abolishing their own previous 


mode of appropriation, and thereby also every 
other previous mode of appropriation. They 
have nothing of their own to secure and to 
fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous 
securities for, and insurances of, individual prop- 

All previous historical movements were move- 
ments of minorities, or in the interest of minori- 
ties. The proletarian movement is the self-con- 
t scious, independent movement of the immense 
'majority, in the interest of the immense majority. 
The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present 
society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, with- 
out the whole superincumbent strata of official 
society being sprung into the air. 

Though not in substance, yet in form, the strug- 
gle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at 
first a national struggle. The proletariat of each 
country must, of course, first of all settle matters 
with its own bourgeoisie. 

In depicting the most general phases of the de- 
velopment of the proletariat, we traced the more 
or less veiled civil war, raging within existing 
society, up to the point where that war breaks out 
into open revolution, and where the violent over- 
throw of the bourgeoisie, lays the foundation for 
the sway of the proletariat. 

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, 
as we have already seen, on the antagonism of 
oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order 
to oppress a class, certain conditions must be. 
assured to it under which it can, at least, continue 
its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of 
serfdom, raised himself to membership ir the 


commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the 
yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop 
into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the 
contrary, instead of rising with the progress of 
industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the con- 
ditions of existence of his own class. He becomes 
a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly 
than population and wealth. And here it becomes 
evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer 
to be the ruling class in society, and to impose 
its conditions of existence upon society as an 
over-riding law. It is unfit to rule, because it is 
incompetent to assure an existence to its slave 
within his slavery, because it cannot help letting 
him sink into such a state that it has to feed him, 
instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer 
live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its 
existence is no longer compatible with society. 

The essential condition for the existence, and 
for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the forma- 
tion and augmentation of capital; the condition 
for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests ex- 
clusively on competition between the laborers. 
The advance of industry, whose involuntary pro- 
moter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of 
the laborers, due to competition, by their revolu- 
tionary combination, due to association. The de- 
velopment of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts 
from under its feet the very foundation on which 
the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates prod- 
ucts. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, 
above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and 
the victory of the proletariat are equally in- 




In what relation do the Communists stand to 
the proletarians as a whole? 

The Communists do not form a separate party 
opposed to other working-class parties. 

They have no interests separate and apart from 
those of the proletariat as a whole. 

They do not set up any sectarian principles 
of their own, by which to shape and mould the 
proletarian movement. 

The Communists are distinguished from the 
other working class parties by this only: 1. In 
the national struggles of the proletarians of the 
different countries, they point out and bring to 
the front the common interests of the entire prole- 
tariat independently of all nationality. 2. In the 
various stages of development which the struggle 
of the working class against the bourgeoisie has 
to pass through, they always and everywhere 
represent the interests of the movement as a 

The Communists, therefore, are on the one 
hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute 
section of the working class parties of every coun- 
try, that section which pushes forward all others ; 
on the other hand, theoretically, they have over 
the great mass of the proletariat the advantage 
of clearly understanding the line of march, the 
conditions, and the ultimate general results of 
the proletarian movement. 

The immediate aim of the Communists is the 
same as that of all the other proletarian, parties ; 


formation of the proletariat into a class, over- 
throw of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of 
political power by the proletariat. 

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists 
are in no way based on ideas or principles that 
have been invented, or discovered, by this or that 
would-be universal reformer. 

They merely express, in general terms, actual 
relations springing from an existing class strug- 
gle, from a historical movement going on under 
our very eyes. The abolition of existing property 
relations is not at all a distinctive feature of 

All property relations in the past have continu- 
ally been subject to historical change consequent 
upon the change in historical conditions. 

The French Revolution, for example, abolished 
feudal property in favor of bourgeois property. 

The distinguishing feature of Communism is 
not the abolition of property generally, but the 
abolition of bourgeois property. But modern 
bourgeois private property is the final and most 
complete expression of the system of producing 
and appropriating products, that is based on class 
antagonism, on the exploitation of the many by 
the few. 

In this sense, the theory of the Communists 
may be summed up in the single sentence : Abo- 
lition of private property. 

We Communists have been reproached with the 
desire of abolishing the right of personally ac- 
quiring property as the fruit of a man's own 
labor, which property is alleged to be the ground 
work of all personal freedom, activity and inde- 


Hard- won, self-acquired, self-earned property! 
Do you mean the property of the petty artisan 
and of the small peasant, a form of property that 
preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need 
to abolish that; the development of industry has 
to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still 
destroying it daily. 

Or do you mean modern bourgeois private 

But does wage-labor create any property for 
the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i. e., 
that kind of property which exploits wage-labor, 
and which cannot increase except upon condition 
of getting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh 
exploitation. Property, in its present form, is 
based' on the antagonism of capital and wage-la- 
bor. Let us examine both sides of this antagon- 

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely 
personal, but a social status in production. Capital 
is a collective product, and only by the united 
action of many members, nay, in the last resort, 
only by the united action of all members of so- 
ciety, can it be set in motion. 

Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social 

When, therefore, capital is converted into com- 
mon property, into the property of all members 
of society, personal property is not thereby trans- 
formed into social property. It is only the social 
character of the property that is changed. It 
loses its class-character. 

Let us now take wage-labor. 

The average price of wage-labor is the mini- 
mum wage, i. e., that quantum of the means of 



subsistence, which is absolutely requish* *o keep 
the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What 
therefore, the wage-laborer appropriates by means 
Gf his labor, merely suffices to prolong and repro- 
duce a bare existence. We by no means intend 
to abolish this personal appropriation of the prod- 
ucts of labor, an appropriation that is made for 
the maintenance and reproduction of human life, 
and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command 
the labor of others. All that we want to do away 
with is the miserable character of this appropria- 
tion, under which the laborer lives merely to in- 
crease capital, and is allowed to live only in so far 
as the interest of the ruling class requires it. 

In bourgeois society, living labor is but a mean* 
to increase accumulated labor. In Communist so- 
ciety, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, 
ito enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer. 

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past domi* 
nates the present ; in communist society, the pres- 
ent dominates the past. In bourgeois society 
capital is independent and has individuality, while 
the living person is dependent and has no individ- 

And the abolition of this state of things is called 
by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and 
freedom ! And rightly so. The abolition of bour- 
geois individuality, bourgeois independence, and 
bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. 

By freedom is meant, under the present bour- 
geois conditions of production, free trade, free 
selling and buying. 

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling 
and buying disappears also. This talk about free 
selling and buying, and all the other "brave 


words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in gen- 
eral, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with 
restricted selling and buying, with the fettered 
traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning 
when opposed to the Communistic abolition of 
buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of 
production, and of the bourgeoisie itself. 

You are horrified at our intending to do away 
with private property. But in your existing so- 
ciety, private property is already done away with 
for nine-tenths of the population ; its existence for 
the few is solely due to its non-existence in the 
hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, 
therefore, with intending to do away with a form 
of property, the necessary condition for whose ex- 
istence is, the non-existence of any property for 
the immense majority of society.} 

In one word, you reproach us with intending to 
do away with your property. Precisely so; that 
is just what we intend. 

From the moment when labor can no longer be 
converted into capital, money, or rent, into a so- 
cial power capable of being monopolized, i. e., 
from the moment when individual property can no 
longer be transformed into bourgeois property, 
into capital, from that moment, you say, individ- 
uality vanishes. 

You must, therefore, confess that by "individ- 
ual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, 
than the middle-class owner of property. This 
person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and 
made impossible. 

Communism deprives no man of the power to 
appropriate the products of society : all that it does 
is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the 



labor of others by means of such appropriation. 
f* It has been objected, that upon the abolition of 
private property all work will cease, and universal 
laziness will overtake us. 

(According to this, bourgeois society ought long 
ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idle- 
ness ; for those of its members who work, acquire 
nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not 
workjThe whole of this objection is but another 
expression of the tautology: that there can no 
longer be any wage-labor when there is no longer 
any capital. 

All objections urged against the Communistic 
mode of producing and appropriating material 
products, have, in the same way, been urged 
against the Communistic modes of producing and 
appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to 
the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property 
is the disappearance of production itself, so the 
disappearance of class culture is to him identical 
with the disappearance of all culture. 

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, 
for the enormous majority, a mere training to 
act as a machine. 

But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, 
to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, 
the standard of your bourgeois notions of free- 
dom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but 
the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois 
production and bourgeois property, just as your 
jurisprudence is but the will of your class made 
into a law for all, a will, whose essential charac- 
ter and direction are determined by the economic 
conditions of existence of your class. 

The selfish misconception that induces you to 


transform into eternal laws of nature and of rea- 
son, the social forms springing from your present 
mode of production and form of property — histor- 
ical relations that rise and disappear in the prog- 
ress of production — this misconception you share 
with every ruling class that has preceded you. 
What you see clearly in the case of ancient prop- 
erty, what you admit in the case of feudal prop- 
erty, you are of course forbidden to admit in the 
case of your own bourgeois form of property. 

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical 
flare up at this infamous proposal of the Com- 

On what foundation is the present family, the 
bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private 
gain. In its completely developed form this fam- 
ily exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this 
state of things finds its complement in the prac- 
tical absence of the family among the prole- 
tarians, and in public prostitution. 

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter 
of course when its complement vanishes, and both 
will vanish with the vanishing of capital. 

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the 
exploitation of children by their parents? To this 
crime we plead guilty. 

But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed 
of relations, when we replace home education by 

And your education ! Is not that also social, and 
determined by the social conditions under which 
you educate, by the intervention, direct or indi- 
rect, of society by means of schools, etc.? The 
Communists have not invented the intervention 
of society in education ; they do but seek to alter 


the character of that intervention, and to rescue 
education from the influence of the ruling class. 

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and 
education, about the hallowed co-relation of par- 
ent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, 
the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all 
family ties among the proletarians are torn 
asunder, and their children transformed into 
simple articles of commerce and instruments of 

But you Communists would introduce com- 
munity of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie 
in chorus. 

The bourgeois. sees in his wife a mere instru- 
ment of production. He hears that the instru- 
ments of production are to be exploited in com- 
mon, and, naturally, can come to no other conclu- 
sion, than that the lot of being common to all will 
likewise fall to the women. 

He has not even a suspicion that the real point 
aimed at is to do away with the status of women 
as mere instruments of production. 

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the 
virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the com- 
munity of women which, they pretend, is to be 
openly and officially established by the Com- 
munists. The Communists have no need to in- 
troduce community of women; it has existed 
almost from time immemorial. 

Our bourgeois, not content with having the 
wives and daughters of their proletarians at their 
disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take 
the greatest pleasure in seducing each others' 

Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of 


wives in common and thus, at the most, what the 
Communists might possibly be reproached with, 
is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for 
a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized 
community of women. For the rest, it is self-evi- 
dent, that the abolition of the present system of 
production must bring with it the abolition of the 
community of women springing from that sys- 
tem, i. e., of prostitution both public and private. 

The Communists are further reproached with 
desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. 

The working men have no country. We can- 
not take from them what they have not got. Since 
the proletariat must first of all acquire political 
supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of 
the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, 
so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois 
sense of the word. 

National differences, and antagonisms between 
peoples, are daily more and more vanishing, ow- 
ing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to free- 
dom of commerce, to the world-market, to uni- 
formity in the mode of production and in the con- 
ditions of life corresponding thereto. 

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause 
them to vanish still faster. United action, of the 
leading civilized countries at least, is one of the 
first conditions for the emancipation of the prole- 

In proportion as the exploitation of one indi- 
vidual by another is put an end to, the exploita- 
tion of one nation by another will also be put a^ 
end to. In proportion as the antagonism between 



dasses within the nation vanishes, the hostility 
oi one nation to another will come to an end. 

The charges against Communism made from a 
religious, a philosophical, and generally, from an 
ideological standpoint, are not deserving of seri- 
ous examination. 

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend 
that man's ideas, views, and conceptions, in one 
word, man's consciousness, changes with ever} 
change in the conditions of his material existence, 
in his social relations and in his social life? 

What else does the history of ideas prove, than 

that intellectual production changes in character 

in proportion as material production is changed? 

pThe ruling ideas of each age have ever been the 

ideas of its ruling class. *J 

When people speak of ideas that revolutionize 
society, they do but express the fact, that within 
the old society, the elements of a new one have 
been created, and that the dissolution of the old 
ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the 
old conditions of existence. 

When the ancient world was in its last throes, 
the ancient religions were overcome by Christian- 
ity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th 
century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought 
its death-battle with the then revolutionary bour- 
geoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and free- 
dom of conscience, merely gave expression to the 
sway of free competition within the domain of 

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, 
, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have 
been modified in the course of historical develop- 
ment. But religion, morality, philosophy, poli- 




tical science, and law, constantly survived this 

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as 
Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all 
states of society. But Communism abolishes 
eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all 
morality, instead of constituting them on a new f 
basis ; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past 
historical experience." 

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The 
history of all past society has consisted in the de- 
velopment of class antagonisms, antagonisms that 
assumed different forms at different epochs. 

But whatever form they may have taken, one 
fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploita- 
tion of one part of society by the other. No won- 
der, then, that the social consciousness of past 
ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it 
displays, moves within certain common forms, or 
general ideas, which cannot completely vanish ex- 
cept with the total disappearance of class an- 

The Communist revolution is the most radical 
rupture with traditional property-relations; no 
wonder that its development involves the most 
radical rupture with traditional ideas. 

But let us have done with the bourgeois objec- 
tions to Communism. 

We have seen above, that the first step in the 
revolution by the working class, is to rais$ the 
proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win 
the battle of democracy. 

The proletariat will use its political suprem- 
acy, to wrest, bv degrees, all capital from the 


bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of pro- 
duction in the hands of the State, i. e., of the pro- 
letariat organized as the ruling class; and to in- 
crease the total of productive forces as rapidly as 

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be 
effected except by means of despotic inroads on 
the rights of property, and on the conditions of 
bourgeois production; by means of measures, 
therefore, which appear economically insufficient 
and untenable, but which, in the course of the 
movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate fur- 
ther inroads upon the old social order, and arc 
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutioniz- 
ing the mode of production. 

These measures will of course be different in 
different countries. 

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries 
*s the following will be pretty generally applicable : 
j*~~~l. Abolition of property in land and applica- 
I tion of all rents of land to public purposes. ^ 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income 

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants 
and rebels. 

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the 
state, by means of a national bank with State 
capital and an exclusive monopoly. 

6. Centralization of the means of communica- 
tion and transport in the hands of the State. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of 
production owned by the State ; the bringing into 
cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement 


of the soil generally in accordance with a common 

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establish- 
ment of industrial armies, especially for agricul- 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufac- 
turing industries ; gradual abolition of the distinc- 
tion between town and country, by a more 
equable distribution of population over the coun- 

10. Free education for all children in public 
schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its 
present form. Combination of education with in- 
dustrial production, etc., etc. 

When, in the course of development, class dis- 
tinctions have disappeared, and all production has 
been concentrated in the hands of a vast associa- 
tion of the whole nation, the public power will 
lose its political character. Political power, prop- 
erly so called, is merely the organized power of 
one class for oppressing another. If the prole- 
tariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is 
compelled, by the force of circumstances, to or- 
ganize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolu- 
tion, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, 
sweeps away by force the old conditions of pro- 
duction, then it will, along with these conditions, 
have swept away the conditions for the existence 
of class antagonisms, and of classes generally, and 
will thereby have abolished its own supremacy 
as a class. 

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its 
classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an 
association, in which the free development of each 
is the condition for the free development of all. 




1. Reactionary Socialism, 
a. Feudal Socialism. 

Owing to their historical position, it became the 
vocation of the aristocracies of France and Eng- 
land to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois 
society. In the French revolution of July, 1830, 
and in the English reform agitation, these aristoc- 
racies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. 
Thenceforth, a serious political contest was alto- 
gether out of the question. A literary battle alone 
remained possible. But even in the domain of 
literature the old cries of the restoration period* 
had become impossible. 

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy 
were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their 
own interests, and to formulate their indictment 
against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the ex- 
ploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy 
took their revenge by singing lampoons on their 
new master, and whispering in his ears sinister 
prophecies of coming catastrophe. 

In this way arose feudal socialism ; half lamen- 
tation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half 
menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty 
and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to 
the very hearts' core, but always ludicrous in its 

*Not the English Restoration 1660 to 1689, but the French Restora- 
tion 1814 to 1830. 


effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the 
march of modern history. 

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people 
to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front 
(or a banner. But the people, so often as it joined 
them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal 
coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irrerer- 
ent laughter. 

One section of the French Legitimists, and 
"Young England," exhibited this spectacle. 

In pointing out that their mode of exploitation 
was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the 
feudalists forget that they exploited under cir- 
cumstances and conditions that were quite differ- 
ent, and that are now antiquated. In showing 
that, under their rule, the modern proletariat 
never existed, they forget that the modern bour- 
geoisie is the necessary offspring of their own 
form of society. 

For the rest, so little do they conceal the re- 
actionary character of their criticism, that their 
chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts 
to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class 
is being developed, which is destined to cut up 
root and branch the old order of society. 

What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not 
so much that it creates a proletariat, as that it 
creates a revolutionary proletariat. 

In political practice, therefore, they join in all 
coercive measures against the working-class ; and 
in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases, 
they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped 
fro*a the tree of industry, and to barter truth, 


love, and honor for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar 
and potato spirit.* 

As the parson has ever gone hand in hand 
with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with 
Feudal Socialism. 

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceti- 
cism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity de- 
claimed against private property, against marriage, 
against the State? Has it not preached in the 
place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy, and 
mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother 
Church? Christian Socialism is but the Holy 
Water with which the priest consecrates the 
heart-burnings of the aristocrat. 

b. Petty Bourgeois Socialism. 

The feudal aristocracy was not the only class 
that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only 
class whose conditions of existence pined and 
perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois 
society. The medieval burgesses and the small 
peasant bourgeoisie, were the precursors of the 
modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are 
but little developed, industrially and commer- 
cially, these two classes still vegetate side by 
side with the rising bourgeoisie. 

In countries where modern civilization has be- 
come fully developed, a new class of petty bour- 
geois has been formed, fluctuating between pro- 
letariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself 
as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. 

*lhis applies chiefly to Germany where the landed aristocracy 
and squirearchy have large portions of their estates cultivated for 
their own account by stewards, and are, moreover, extensive beet- 
root-sugar manufacturers and distillers of potato spirits. The 
wealthier British aristocracy are, as yet, rather above that; but 
they, too, know how to make up for declining rents by lending 
their names to. floaters of more or leas shady joint-stock companies. 


The individual members of this class, however, 
are being constantly hurled down into the pro- 
letariat by the action of competition, and, as mod- 
ern industry develops, they even see the moment 
approaching when they will completely disappear 
as an independent section of modern society, to 
be replaced, in manufactures, agriculture and 
commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen. 

In countries like France, where the peasants 
constitute far more than half of the population, it 
was natural that writers who sided with the prole- 
tariat against the bourgeoisie, should use, in their 
criticism of the bourgeoisie regime, the standard 
of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the 
standpoint of these intermediate classes should 
take up the cudgels for the working-class. Thus 
arose petty bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was 
the head of this school, not only in France, but 
also in England. 

This school of Socialism dissected with great 
acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of 
modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical 
apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovert- 
ibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and divi- 
sion of labor ; the concentration of capital and land 
in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it 
pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bour- 
geois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, 
the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities 
in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of 
extermination between nations, the dissolution of 
old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the 
; old nationalities. 

In its positive aims, however, this form of So- 
cialism aspires either to restoring the old means 


of production and of exchange, and with them the 
old property relations, and the old society, or to 
cramping the modern means of production and of 
exchange, within the frame work of the old prop- 
erty relations that have been, and were bound to 
be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is 
both reactionary and Utopian. 

Its last words are: corporate guilds for manu- 
facture ; patriarchal relations in agriculture. 

Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had 
dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, 
this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of 
the blues. 

German or "True" Socialism. 

The Socialist and Communist literature of 
France, a literature that originated under the 
pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was 
the expression of the struggle against this power, 
was introduced into Germany at a time when the 
bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its 
contest with feudal absolutism. 

German philosophers, would-be philosophers, 
and beaux esprits, eagerly seized on this litera- 
ture, only forgetting, that when these writings 
immigrated from France into Germany, French 
social conditions had not immigrated along with 
them. In contact with German social conditions, 
this French literature lost all its immediate prac- 
tical significance, and assumed a purely literary 
aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the 
Eighteenth Century, the demands of the first 
French Revolution were nothing more than the 
demands of "Practical Reason" in general, and the 
utterance of the will of the revolutionary French 
bourgeoisie signified in their eyes the laws of pure 


Will, of Will as it was bound to be, of true human 
Will generally. 

The work of the German literati consisted 
solely in bringing the new French ideas into 
harmony with their ancient philosophical con- 
science, or rather, in annexing the French ideas 
without deserting their own philosophic point of 

This annexation took place in the same way in 
which a foreign language is appropriated, namely 
by translation. 

It is well known how the monks wrote silly 
lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on 
which the classical works of ancient heathendom 
had been written. The German literati reversed 
this process with the profane French literature. 
They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath 
the French original. For instance, beneath the 
French criticism of the economic functions of 
money, they wrote "Alienation of Humanity," and 
beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois 
State they wrote, "Dethronement of the Category 
of the General," and so forth. 

The introduction of these philosophical phrases 
at the back of the French historical criticisms 
they dubbed "Philosophy of Action," "True So- 
cialism," "German Science of Socialism," "Phil- 
osophical Foundation of Socialism," and so on. 

The French Socialist and Communist literature 
was thus completely emasculated. And, since it 
ceased in the hands of the German to express the 
struggle of one class with the other, he felt con- 
scious of having overcome "French one-sided- 
ness" and of representing, not true requirements, 
but the requirements of Truth, not the interests of 


the proletariat, but the interests of Human Na- 
ture, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, 
has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm 
01 philosophical phantasy. 

This German Socialism, which took its school- 
boy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled 
its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank 
fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic 

The fight of the German, and, especially, of the 
Frussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy 
and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal 
movement, became more earnest. 

By this, the long-wished-for opportunity was 
offered to "True Socialism" of confronting the 
political movement with the socialist demands, of 
hurling the traditional anathemas against liberal- 
ism, against representative government, against 
bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the 
press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and 
equality, and of preaching to the masses that they 
had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by 
this bourgeois movement. German Socialism 
forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criti- 
cism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the 
existence of modern bourgeois society, with its 
corresponding economic conditions of existence, 
and the political constitution adapted thereto, the 
very things whose attainment was the object of 
the pending struggle in Germany. 

To the absolute governments, with their follow- 
ing of parsons, professors, country squires and 
officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against 
the threatening bourgeoisie. 

It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of 


floggings and bullets, with which these same gov* 
crnments, just at that time, dosed the German 
working-class risings. 

While this "True" Socialism thus served the 
governments as a weapon for fighting the Ger- 
man bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly 
represented a reactionary interest, the interest of 
the German Philistines. In Germany the petty 
bourgeois class, a relic of the 16th century, and 
since then constantly cropping up again under 
various forms, is the real social basis of the exist- 
ing state of things. 

To preserve this class, is to preserve the exist- 
ing state of things in Germany. The industrial 
and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie 
threatens it with certain destruction; on the one 
hand, from the concentration of capital; on the 
other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. 
"True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds 
with one stone. It spread like an epidemic. 

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered 
with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of 
sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in 
which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry 
"eternal truths/' all skin and bone, served to won- 
derfully increase the sale of their goods amongst 
such a public. 

And on its part, German Socialism recognized, 
more and more, its own calling as the bombastic 
representative of the petty bourgeois Philistine. 

It proclaimed the German nation to be the 
model nation, and the German petty Philistine to 
be the typical man. To every villainous mean- 
ness of this model man it gave a hidden, higher, 
socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its 


true character. It went to the extreme length of 
directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tend- 
ency of Communism, and of proclaiming its su- 
preme and impartial contempt of all class strug- 
gles. With rery few exceptions, all the so-called 
Socialist and Communist publications that now 
(1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain 
of this foul and enervating literature. 

2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism. 

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redress- 
ing social grievances, in order to secure the con- 
tinued existence of bourgeois society. 
^ To this section belong economists, philanthro- 
pists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition 
of the work class, organizers of charity, members 
of societies for the prevention of cruelty to ani- 
mals, temperance fanatics, hole and corner re- 
formers of every imaginable kind. This form of 
Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into 
complete systems. 

* We may cite Proudhon's "Philosophic de la 
Misere" as an example of this form. 

The socialistic bourgeois want all the advant- 
ages of modern social conditions without the 
struggles and dangers necessarily resulting there- 
from. They desire the existing state of society 
minus its revolutionary and disintegrating ele- 
ments. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a 
proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives 
the world in which it is supreme to be the best; 
and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable 
conception into various more or less complete sys- 
tems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out 



such a system, and thereby to march straightway 
into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in 
reality, that the proletariat should remain within 
the bounds of - existing society, but should cast 
away all its hateful ideas concerning the bour- 

A second and more practical, but less system- 
atic, form of this socialism sought to depreciate 
every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the 
working class, by showing that no mere political 
reform, but only a change in the material condi- 
tions of existence, in economical relations, could 
be of any advantage to them. By changes in the 
material conditions of existence, this form of So- 
cialism, however, by no means understands aboli- 
tion of the bourgeois relations of production, an 
abolition that can be effected only by a revo- 
lution, but administrative reforms, based on the 
continued existence of these relations; reforms, 
therefore, that in no respect affect the relations 
between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen 
the cost, and simplify the administrative work, 
of bourgeois government. 

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expres- 
sion, when, and only when, it becomes a mere 
figure of speech. 

Free trade : for the benefit of the working class. 
Protective duties : for the benefit of the working 
class. Prison Reform : for the benefit of the work- 
ing class. This is the last word and the only seri- 
ously meant word of bourgeois Socialism. 

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois 
is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working 


3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. 

We do not here refer to that literature which, 
in every great modern revolution, has always 
given voice to the demands of the proletariat: 
such as the writings of Babeuf and others. 

The first direct attempts of the proletariat to 
attain its own ends were made in times of uni- 
versal excitement, when feudal society was being 
overthrown. These attempts necessarily failed, 
owing to the then undeveloped state of the 
proletariat, as well as to the absence of the eco- 
nomic conditions for its emancipation, conditions 
that had yet to be produced, and could be pro- 
duced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. 
The revolutionary literature that accompanied 
these first movements of the proletariat had 
necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated 
universal asceticism and social leveling in its 
crudest form. 

The Socialist and Communist systems properly 
so-called, those of St. Simon, Fourier, Owen and 
others, spring into existence in the early unde- 
veloped period, described above, of the struggle 
between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see section 
I. Bourgeoisie and Proletariat). 

The founders of these systems see, indeed, the 
class antagonisms, as well as the action of the 
decomposing elements in the prevailing form of 
society. But the proletariat, as yet in its in- 
fancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class 
without any historical initiative or any inde- 
pendent political movement. 

Since the development of class antagonism 
keeps even pace with the development of industry, 
the economic situation, as they find it, does not 


is yet offer to them the material conditions for 
the emancipation of the proletariat. They there- 
fore search after a new social science, after new 
social laws, that are to create these conditions. 

Historical action is to yield to their personal 
inventive action, historically created conditions 
of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the 
gradual, spontaneous class-organization of the 
proletariat to an organization of society specially 
contrived by these inventors. Future history re- 
solves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda 
and the practical carrying out of their social plans. 

In the formation of their plans they are con- 
scious of caring chiefly for the interests of the 
working-class, as being the most suffering class. 
Only from the point of view of being the most 
suffering class does the proletariat exist for them. 

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as 
well as their own surroundings, cause Socialists 
of this kind to consider themselves far superior 
to all class antagonisms. They want to improve 
the condition of every member of society, even 
that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually 
appeal to society at large, without distinction of 
class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. 
For how can people, when once they understand 
their system, fail to see in it the best possible 
plan of the best possible state of society? 

Hence, they reject all political, and especially 
all revolutionary action ; they wish to attain their 
ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small 
experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and 
by the force of example, to pave the way for the 
new social Gospel. 

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted 


at a time when the proletariat is still in a very 
undeveloped state, and has but a fantastic con- 
ception of its own position, correspond with the 
first instinctive yearnings of that class for a gen- 
eral reconstruction of society. 

But these Socialist and Communist publications 
contain also a critical element. They attack every 
principle of existing society. Hence they are full 
of the most valuable materials for the enlighten- 
ment of the working class. The practical measures 
proposed in them, such as the abolition of the dis- 
tinction between town and country, of the family, 
of the carrying on of industries for the account 
of private individuals, and of the wage system, 
the proclamation of social harmony, the conver- 
sion of the functions of the State into a mere 
superintendence of production, all these proposals 
point solely to the disappearance of class-antag- 
onisms which were, at that time, only just cropping 
up, and which, in these publications, are recog- 
nized under their earliest, indistinct and unde- 
fined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are 
of a purely Utopian character. 

The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism 
and Communism bears an inverse relation to his- 
torical development. In proportion as the modern 
class struggle develops and takes definite shape, 
this fantastic standing apart from the contest, 
these fantastic attacks on it lose all practical 
value and all theoretical justification. There- 
fore, although the originators of these systems 
were, in many respects, revolutionary, their dis- 
ciples have, in every case, formed mere reaction- 
ary sects. They hold fast by the original views of 
their masters, in opposition to the progressive his- 


torical development of the proletariat. They, there- 
fore, endeavor and that consistently, to deaden 
the class struggle and to reconcile the class antag- 
onisms. They still dream of experimental realiza- 
tion of their social Utopias, of founding isolated 
"phalansteres," of establishing "Home Colonies," 
of setting up a "Little Icaria"* — duodecimo edi- 
tions of the New Jerusalem, and to realize all 
these castles in the air, they are compelled to ap- 
peal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. 
By degrees they sink into the category of the re- 
actionary conservative Socialists depicted above, 
differing from these only by more systematic ped- 
antry, and by their fanatical and superstitious 
belief in the miraculous effects of their social 

They, therefore, violently oppose all political 
action on the part of the working class ; such ac- 
tion, according to them, can only result from blind 
unbelief in the new Gospel. 

The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists 
in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and 
the "Reformistes." 



Section II. has made clear the relations of the 
Communists to the existing working class parties, 

♦Phalansteres were socialist colonies on the plan of Charles 
Fourier. Icaria was the name given by Cabot to his Utopia and* 
later on, to his American Communist colonic* 


isuch as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian 
Reformers in America. 

The Communists fight for the attainment of the 
immediate aims, for the enforcement of the 
momentary interests of the working class; but in 
the movement of the present, they also represent 
and take care of the future of that movement. Jn 
France the Communists ally themselves -vith the* 
Social-Democrats,* against the conservative and 
radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the; right: 
to take up a critical position in regard to phrases 
and illusions traditionally handed d9wn, from the 
great Revolution. •', 

In Switzerland they support the Radicals, with- 
out losing sight of the fact that this party con- 
sists of antagonistic elements, partly of Demo- 
cratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of 
radical bourgeois. 

In Poland they support the party that insists 
on an agrarian revolution, as the prime condition 
for national emancipation, that party which fo- 
mented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846. 

In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie 
whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against 
the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, 
and the petty bourgeoisie. 

But they never cease, for a single instant, to 
instill into the working class the clearest possible 
recognition of the hostile antagonism between 
bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the Ger- 
man workers may straightway use, as so many 

*The party then represented in parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in 
literature by Louis Blanc, in the daily press by the Reforme. The 
name of Social Democracy signified, with these its inventors, a 
section of the Democratic or Republican party more or less tinged 
with Socialism. 


weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and 
political conditions that the bourgeoisie must nec- 
essarily introduce along with its supremacy, and 
in order that, after the fall of the reactionary 
classes in Germany, the fight against the bour- 
geoisie itself may immediately begin. 

The Communists turn their attention chiefly 
to Germany, because that country is on the eve 
of a bourgeois revolution, that is bound to be 
carried out under more advanced conditions o£ 
European Civilization, and with a more de- 
veloped proletariat, than that of England wa$ 
in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth 
century, and because the bourgeois revolution in 
Germany will be but the prelude to an immedi- 
ately following proletarian revolution. 

In short, the Communists everywhere support 
every revolutionary movement against th© exist* 
ing social and political order of things. 

In all these movements they bring to the front, 
as the leading question in each, the property ques- 
tion, no matter what its degree of development 
at the time. 

Finally, they labor everywhere for the union 
and agreement of the democratic parties of all 

The Communists disdain to conceal their views 
and aims. They openly declare that their ends 
can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of 
all existing social conditions. Let the ruling 
classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The 
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. 
They have a world to win. 

Working men of all countries, unite! 

History of 

Hie Supreme Court of the 
United States 

By Gustavus Myers 

For over a century the Supreme Court of the United State. 
ha* towered aloft in omnipotent sway over all other insti- 
tution.. Absolute and final, its decrees have gone deep into 
the history of the nation and have had their mighty effect 
upon the wars of the classes. This book is a comprehensive 
history of the development of capitalist resources, power and 
tactics, and of the great and continuing conflict of classes. 
Jt reveals the true sources of the primitive accumulation ot 
wealth which, beginning with the appropriation of land and 
the dispossession of the workers, has extended to the elabo- 
rate forms of capitalistic power existing today. 

Palpably, a dominant class must have some supreme insti- 
tution through which it can express it. consecutive demand, 
'and enforce it. will. In the United State, the one all-potent 
Institution automatically responding to these demands and 

enforcing them has been the Supreme Court. Vested with 
i absolute and unappealable power, it ha. been able. wrth > • 
l mar adaptable flexibility, to transmute that wnl not 

merely into law but into action. This History o he Supreme 

Court" being a narrative of the deeds of the chief ^bulwark 
' capitalism, constitute, at the same time the be.t I**"** 

the^ United State, that ha. yet appeared. One large volume. 

823 page.. $2.50. 


Tke Origin of the Fa mil 


By Frederick Engels 

The book on which are based all subsequent works o 
property and the State written by Socialists and Communist! 
What is the State ? How did it arise? Does it represent a] 
the people? Will it ever disappear? What is its function! 
When did Private Property arise? And how? Has the in 
•titution of the Family changed and evolved? just now a 
over the world socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and com 
munists are divided upon the subject of the State, its origin 
its function and its future. Which group are you in, and d< 
you know why? This book explains these vital questions fo 
you. Cloth, 217 pages, 60 cents. 



By Frederick Engels 

When may we expect a proletarian revolution? Can we 
plan to have it at a certain time? Can we carry a revo- 
lution by propaganda? Does it depend on what we desire? 
We all want tickets to the New Society of the Workers. How 
can we know how near we are historically? Engels gives us 
the signs in this book. They never fail. When we under- 
stand them we can know how to use social and economic 
forces to carry us forward to the New Day. Cloth, 60 cents; 
paper, 25 cents. 



A Critique of Political Economy 

By Karl Marx 

This work is beyond comparison the greatest of all 
'aaiiult books It is a scientific analysis of the society in 
•hich we live bowing the precise method by which the 
apYtalisU grow rich at the expense of the wage-workers. 
' VOLUME I. entitled 'The Process of Capitalist , Produc. 
on" is practically complete in itself. It explains the thing 
,,hich. up P to the time that Marx came on tbe «~ne- had 
onfused all the economists, namely. Surplus. Value, it ex 
S exactly how the capitalist extract, his profits. This 
'olume mTght be called the keystone of the Socialist arch. 
169 pages, $2.50. 

VOLUME II. "The Process of Circulation of Capital," 
explains the part that the merchant and the banker play in 
he present system, and the law, that govern social capital. 
Jnra P veT. knot, in which previous writer, had become en- 
wangled. 618 page,. $2.50. 

VOLUME III. in ,ome respects the most i«tere«tin« of all. 
treat, of "The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole. 
Predict, the Rise of Trusts and makes clear the Cause of 
f^rand InLlial Crises Shows how the small cap.tali* » 

allowed. Explains for all time the subject, of Land, Rent 

d Farming. 1.048 page., $2.50. 

The complete work .ells for $7.50. and contain, over 
L 500 large^ page., in three handsome volume,, bound in 
cloth and^tamped' in gold Any capitalist publishing house 

lowest possible price,. Ask for catalog. 


341-349 East Ohio Street, Chicago 



Researches in the Lines of Human Progresi 
From Savagery Through Barbarism 
to Civilization 


One American and only one is recognized by th 
universities of Europe as one of the world's grei 
scientists. That American is Lewis H. Morgan, th 
author of this book. He was the pioneer writer o 
the subject. His conclusions have been fully sustaine 
by later investigators. 

This work contains a full and clear explanation of man 
vitally important facts, without which no intelligent dii 
cussion of the "Woman Question*' is possible. It shows thi 
the successive marriage customs that have arisen have corrc 
spondee! to certain definite industrial conditions. The autho 
shows that it is industrial changes that aher the relations c 
the 9ex*9 t and that these changes are still going on. He show 
the historical reason for the "double standard of morals" fa 
men and women, over which reformers have wailed in vain 
And he points the way to a cleaner, freer, happier life fo: 
Women in the future, through the triumph of the workinf 
class. All this is shown indirectly through historical facts; tin 
reader is left to draw his own conclusions. 

Cloth, 586 large pages. Price $2.00, post paid. 


341-349 East Ohio Street, Chicago 


The Positive Outcome of Philosophy 

By Josef Dietzgen 

One of the beat books we have ever published is THE 
iany thousands of Josef Dietzgen's books, and readers every- 
here have testified to their educational value and to the 
hjoyment and enlightenment they obtained from the study 
f Dietzen. 

December 9th f 1 928, was the hundredth anniversary of 
he birth of Josef Dietzgen. To commemorate the event we 
ublished, with the kind assistance of his son, Eugen Dietzgen, 
new translation of THE POSITIVE OUTCOME OF 
PHILOSOPHY. This new translation from the original Ger- 
man is by W. W. Craik, an Englishman, resident of Hamburg. 

| Good as our former edition was, we do not hesitate to 
ssert that this translation is immensely superior. It is in 
iear and expressive English, which simplifies the study. Craik 
las certainly done his work well. 

To those who have formerly read the philosophy of Josef 
Dietzgen, it is not necessary to comment upon its merits, but 
(o those who have not yet participated in this pleasure we 
Irish to give here a brief outline of its content. 

It deals with the nature and substance of thinking. It 
trips the human mind of the mysticism that is usually attached 
l-> it, and shows the functioning of the brain as a perfectly 
latural process. Just as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels 
iraced history and economics along evolutionary lines, to the 
ogical conclusion that a new social order is inevitable, so 
;08ef Dietzgen traced the evolution of human thought, as 
expressed through philosophy, to its positive outcome. He 
>hows that the natural sciences have taken over every branch 
>f the old-time philosophy, leaving only the thinking process 
tself to be explained. This latter he accomplishes in a mas- 
srly fashion in his chapter on "The Nature of Human Brain- 

\ The Centenary Edition of THE POSITIVE OUTCOME OF 
7HILOSOPHY is handsomely bound in maroon cloth with 
I old stamping and contains a portrait of its famous author. 
'Jrice $2.00, postage paid. 

341 East Ohio Street, Chicago 

The Origin of the Family 

' — , * i » ~ 


/ - . By Frederick Engels 

The book on wnich are based all subsequent works on 
property and tKe State written by Socialists and Communists. 
What is thejState? How did it arise? Does* it represent all 
the > f?ibple? Will it ever disappear? What is its function? 
When did Private Property arise? And how? Has the in- 
stitution of the -Family changed and evolved? Just now all 
over the world socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and com- 
munists are divided upon the subject of the State, its origin, 
its function and its future. Which "groupi£are you in, and do 
you know why? This book explains Jthpse vital questions for 
you. Cloth/ 2j 7 pagesr, &0 cents. 




By Frederick '£ngels 

When may we expect a proletarian Wvrolution? Can we 
plan to have it at a certain time? Can we carry a revo- 
lution by propaganda? Does it depend"*oV wiiat we desire? 
We all want tickets to the New Society of the Workers. How 
can we know how near we are historically? Engels gives us 
the signs in this book. They never fail. When we under- 
stand them we can know how to use social and economic 
forces to carry us forward to the New Day. Cloth, 60 cents; 
paper, 25 cents. 



3 1197 00387 0554 

Brigham Young University 

l*n n v «/ - —